EAT The employee made a claim for sexual harassment against her employer and an individual who effectively ran the company. No response was entered and the Chairman entered a default judgment on liability only. Some months later a remedies hearing was fixed and the individual (the Second Appellant) turned up and wished to make representations. He contended that he had in fact written to the Tribunal seeking a review of the default judgment. The Chairman held that there was no valid application for review and that in any event he would have exercised his discretion against granting it. He told the individual that thereafter he could not participate in the proceedings by virtue of Rule 9 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Compensation was fixed. The Appellants contended that the Chairman ought to have allowed the application to set aside the default judgment, alternatively should at the very least have permitted the Appellants to take part in the remedies hearing since they were present and wished to do so. They also challenged the assessment of compensation on various grounds. The EAT dismissed the appeal against the default judgment on liability but held that the Chairman should have sought to permit them to participate in the remedies hearing, and that there was an admittedly tortuous and somewhat artificial procedure whereby that could have been done. The EAT made on order that the Appellants should be allowed to take part in that hearing and set aside the award of compensation. In the circumstances it did not consider the ground of appeal directed solely at the assessment.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)
Citations:
UKEAT/0226/06, [2006] UKEAT 0226 – 06 – 0208
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Cited – NSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.257881